GeForce 210 vs 320M

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1215not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.68no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameC89GT218
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$29.49

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores4816
Core clock speed450 MHz589 MHz
Number of transistors486 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt30.5 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate7.2004.160
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs168

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data2.731" (6.9 cm)
WidthIGP1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem SharedGDDR2
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data8.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsDVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.14.1
OpenGL3.33.1
OpenCLN/A1.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 320M 209
+81.7%
GeForce 210 115

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 2010 12 October 2009
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 30 Watt

GeForce 320M has an age advantage of 5 months, and 30.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 320M and GeForce 210. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M
NVIDIA GeForce 210
GeForce 210

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 52 votes

Rate GeForce 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 3589 votes

Rate GeForce 210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.